Questionnaire Analysis Report. July 2007

Transcription

1 Questionnaire Analysis Report July 2007 Table of Contents Page No 1. Key Findings 2 2. Project Background 3 3. Consultation Methodology 3 4. Response to the Consultation 4 5. Analysis of joint questions 5 6. Analysis of technology options ranking 8 7. Analysis of additional questions in short questionnaire Analysis of additional questions in technical questionnaire 21 Analysis report prepared by: Clare Nelmes, Community Consultation Officer, South Gloucestershire Council Tel: , clare.nelmes@southglos.gov.uk Page 1 of 31

2 Key findings from the questionnaires What should we plan for? Over 70% of respondents agreed with the draft vision and objectives in the Development Plan and the Joint Waste Management Strategy. Respondents were keen to see the 3R s (Reduce, re-use and recycle) feature more prominently in our strategies and plans. 89% of respondents agreed that there is a need for additional waste management facilities in the West of England. 84% of respondents agreed that the West of England should deal with its own municipal waste within its own boundaries. Respondents wanted to see more local waste treatment facilities to cut down on waste miles and the impacts of transporting waste long distances. 57% of respondents disagreed with facilities in the West of England managing waste from other areas. 71% of respondents agreed that our municipal waste facilities should be able to manage commercial and industrial waste. How do we manage the waste? When asked what other facilities the West of England should consider in order to deal with the waste generated, a broad range of services, facilities and other measures to boost recycling, encourage reuse and reduce the amount of waste being produced were the most popular suggestions. 58% of respondents ranked Energy from Waste (Option 1) as there highest preference of the seven technology options presented. This option was consistently ranked the highest preference across all the tests used. 43% of respondents ranked Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by landfill of stabilised output (Option 3) as there lowest preference. This option was consistently the lowest ranking option across all the tests used. Respondents wanted to rule out option 3 because of the amount of residual waste going to landfill. There were also strong views expressed against technology options that required thermal treatment. 62% of respondents thought the range of technology options presented was sufficient. Where should we locate waste management facilities? When looking at the number and size of sites we should consider, 49% of respondents thought we should plan for a combination of facilities of various site sizes. 66% of respondents agreed with the factors that will normally rule out or may rule out waste development. 72% of respondents agreed that the types of sites listed under factors we will look for are the most suitable locations for the additional waste management facilities needed. Page 2 of 31

3 Project Background The West of England partnership, Bath & North East Somerset Council, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council and South Gloucestershire Council, are working together to develop joint longterm strategies for dealing with waste in the West of England area. These include a Waste Strategy and a Development Plan. The Issues & Options consultation moves on from an earlier first phase awareness raising consultation that took place during the summer of 2006, to explore in more detail the waste and planning issues facing the West of England. Consultation Methodology Questionnaires were used as way to inform people about the issues, gauge views on the Issues and Options Technical document and to gather opinion on issues surrounding technology options and site selection criteria. As well as information supplied in the questionnaires, further information was available on the website, the online discussion forum and at a range of public meetings and roadshows. The short questionnaire was distributed widely to a number of public outlets including libraries, council offices, town & parish councils and a large mailing list of interested groups and individuals. The technical questionnaire was distributed with the full Issues and Option document to a number of public bodies, the industry and other special interest groups. Both questionnaires were also available at the public meetings and to complete online or download from the website and return to us. Some of the questions were used in both questionnaires and these results have been combined in this report. The remaining questions were specific to the individual questionnaires and the analysis specifies where this is the case. A copy of all the comments made through both questionnaires is available as a background paper on the website. Access to the anonymous data from the questionnaires is available on request. The results of this consultation are not statistically representative of the West of England population due to the nature of the consultation methodology used and the response rate, however the information gathered and views obtained can be a useful indicator of wider opinion and any important issues that will need to be considered. Page 3 of 31

4 Questionnaire Response In total we received 373 questionnaires short questionnaires (216 paper & 116 online) and 41 technical questionnaires (17 paper & 24 online). There was a relatively even mix of respondents to both questionnaires across the four unitary authority areas, which also mirrored the number of people that attended the public meetings. 88 respondents had an interest in Bath & North East Somerset, 118 had an interest in North Somerset, 112 had an interest in Bristol and 81 had an interest in South Gloucestershire. The vast majority of respondents to both questionnaires lived in the area (295). Others respondents work in the area or represent an organisation that works, operates or has a business interest in the area (121). We also received responses from elected representatives (Cllrs, MP s, etc), employees of the four unitary authorities and visitors to the area. Page 4 of 31

5 Analysis of joint questions Do you agree with the draft vision and aims of the Development Plan? 74% of respondents agreed with the draft vision and aims of the Development Plan. 75 Comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents in response to this question include: A desire to see measures to reduce the amount of waste produced, encourage re-use and recycling more prominently in the strategy. Education and awareness raising. Reduction in packaging. Do you agree with the draft vision and aims of the Development Plan? 66, 18% 31, 8% 276, 74% Yes No No Reply Page 5 of 31

6 Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives of the Joint Waste Management Strategy? 70% of respondents agreed with the draft vision and objectives of the Joint Waste Management Strategy. 101 Comments were received in relation to this question. The key issues for respondents were: A desire to see measures to reduce the amount of waste produced, encourage re-use and recycling more prominently in the strategy. A desire to see a stronger commitment to working towards a Zero Waste Policy. Do you agree with the draft vision and objectives of the Joint Waste Management Strategy? 62, 17% 48, 13% 263, 70% Yes No No Reply Page 6 of 31

7 Generally, do you think we should plan for? 49% of respondents thought we should plan for a combination of facilities of various site sizes. Only respondents of the technical questionnaire were asked to comment on this question. We received 27 comments. The key issues were: Some respondents favoured a few large facilities sites which could bring economies of scale and be easier to bring on line through the planning process. Other respondents favoured a larger number of smaller facilities, closer to the waste stream, which they considered could be more flexible and adaptable to changing waste streams and quantities. Some respondents were concerned about the length of contracts and being tied in to potentially costly and waste demanding facilities Some respondents were concerned about the risk of financing and operating facilities based on emerging technologies. Generally, do you think we should plan for...? 87, 23% 181, 49% 59, 16% 46, 12% Combination of facilities of various site size Small number of large facilities Large number of small facilities No reply Page 7 of 31

8 Analysis of technology options ranking The results of the technology options ranking includes the combined data from both questionnaires. It excludes the no replies from respondents that did not answer this question at all and does not include responses to Friends of the Earth Option X. This question was more complex for respondents to answer and required that they had read the information about the 7 technology options before responding. We received a number of comments about the amount of knowledge required to answer this question in an informed way and that essential information about cost, CO2 emissions and the carbon footprint for each technology were unavailable. This question received a significant number of no responses, with respondents scoring none, one, some or all of the technology options. 88 respondents (23%) did not answer this question at all. To enable us to gain a better understanding of respondents preferences we applied a number of different scorings and tests to the data. The results of which are presented in the following table. The results of these tests show a clear pattern of preference. 58% of respondents ranked Energy from Waste (Option 1) as there highest preference. This option was consistently ranked the highest preference across all the tests used. 43% of respondents ranked Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by landfill of stabilised output (Option 3) as there lowest preference. This option was consistently the lowest ranking option across all the tests used. Biological Mechanical Treatment followed by third party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by in-vessel composting of waste derived compost (Option 2) was ranked as the second highest preference across the majority of tests used. Pyrolysis / Gasification with fuel preparation (option 7) was ranked as the third highest preference across the majority of tests used. Autoclave followed by anaerobic digestion of fibres (option 4) was ranked as the fourth preference across the majority of tests used. Autoclave followed by thermal treatment of fibre (option 6) was consistently ranked as the fifth preference across all of the tests used. Mechanical treatment followed by third party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by anaerobic digestion of waste derived compost, which includes maturation of digested compost product (option 5) was consistently the second lowest ranking option across all the tests used. Respondents rankings mirror the amount of residual waste following treatment that is sent to landfill Page 8 of 31

9 Which of the seven technology options is your preferred choice? Please rank them in order of preference. Option 1 Energy from Waste (EfW) Base 285 (total number of respondents that answered this question in part or fully excludes complete no replies to this question) Page 9 of 31 Option 2 Biological Mechanical Treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by in-vessel composting of waste derived compost. Option 3 Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by landfill of stabilised output Option 4 Autoclave followed by anaerobic digestion of fibres Option 5 Mechanical treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by anaerobic digestion of waste derived compost, which includes maturation of digested compost product Option 6 Autoclave followed by thermal treatment of fibre Option 7 Pyrolysis / Gasification (with fuel preparation) Ranked Ranked Ranked Ranked Ranked Ranked Ranked No Reply Total Replies % of responses to each option 92.3% 82.5% 78.6% 82.5% 77.5% 78.6% 87.7% Sum of responses with no reply as (1) 797 (2) 1283 (7) 835 (3) 1114 (6) 1003 (5) 870 (4) Sum of responses with no reply as mean 646 (1) 967 (2) 1632 (7) 1013 (4) 1437 (6) 1276 (5) 992 (3) Sum of responses with no reply as (1) 972 (2) 1497 (7) 1010 (4) 1338 (6) 1217 (5) 993 (3) Mean of responses with no reply as (1) 3.39 (2) 5.73 (7) 3.55 (4) 5.04 (6) 4.48 (5) 3.48 (3) Mean of responses with no reply as (1) 3.41 (2) 5.25 (7) 3.54 (4) 4.69 (6) 4.27 (5) 3.48 (3) Score with No reply as (1) 1083 (3) 509 (7) 1045(4) 654 (6) 789 (5) 1130 (2) Score with no reply as (1) 1258 (2) 723 (7) 1220 (4) 878 (6) 1003 (5) 1253 (3) Score with no reply as mean 1558 (1) 1253 (2) 858 (7) 1223 (4) 977 (6) 1062 (5) 1252 (3) High Preference (Rank 1 & 2 combined) 202 (1) 90 (3) 16 (6=) 68 (4) 16 (6=) 18 (5) 109 (2) Medium Preference (Rank 3, 4 & 5 combined) 18 (7) 109 (2) 55 (6) 131 (3) 100 (4) 157 (1) 85 (5) Low Preference (Rank 6 & 7 combined) 43 (5) 36 (6=) 153 (1) 36 (6=) 105 (2) 49 (4) 56 (3) people giving a ranking % of people giving a ranking

10 Graph outlining the proportion of rankings for each technology option. Proportion of rankings for each technology option 100% No Reply 7 90% 80% 6 70% 5 60% % 40% 30% 2 20% 1 10% 0% Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Graph showing respondent ranking of their highest preference for each technology option. Number of respondents that ranked this option as their highest preference Option 1 - Energy from Waste (EfW) Option 2 - Biological Mechanical Treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by in-vessel composting of waste derived compost. Option 3 - Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by landfill of stabilised output Option 4 - Autoclave followed by Anaerobic digestion of fibres Option 5 - Mechanical treatment followed by 3rd party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by anaerobic digestion of waste derived compost, which includes maturation of digested compost product Option 6 - Autoclave followed by thermal treatment of fibre Option 7 - Pyrolysis / Gasification (with fuel preparation) Page 10 of 31

11 Do you think the range of technology options presented is sufficient? 62% of respondents thought the range of technology options presented was sufficient. 142 Comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents included; Desire to see as much waste recycled as possible. Information about carbon footprint of options and their impact on climate change. Information about how much technologies cost. The knowledge level of respondents and the need for more information about the options to be able to make an informed decision. Mixed and opposing views about energy from waste. Ensure we take into account emerging technologies. Do you think the range of technology options presented is sufficient? 74, 20% 68, 18% 231, 62% Yes No No Reply Page 11 of 31

12 Is there any of these options you would rule out entirely? Mechanical biological treatment followed by third party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by landfill of stabilised output (Option 3), was the most common option ruled out by respondents. There were also strong views expressed about options that involved thermal treatment. 183 Comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents included; Amount of waste remaining after treatment that requires landfill. Desire to see as much waste recycled as possible. Cost of developing facilities and a desire to see short term contracts and small local facilities. Incineration and impact in emissions. Amount of information required to make an informed decision. Desire to maximise energy recovery from treatment process. Which technology option woud you rule out entirely? Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 No Reply Page 12 of 31

13 Analysis of additional questions in short questionnaire Do you agree that there is a need for additional waste management facilities in the West of England area? 93% of respondents agreed that there is a need for additional waste management facilities in the West of England. 191 comments were received in relation to this question, key issues raised by respondents in response to this question include: The importance of reducing, reusing and recycling in minimising the amount of waste that needs to be treated. Comments were made about consistency regarding the range of waste collected for recycling by the different Council s and a desire to be able to recycle more. The need for facilities in the West of England to deal with our own rubbish. Desire to see a reduction in transporting waste around the country and the impacts of this on the environment, roads and congestion. Desire to see a reduction in packaging (particularly plastic and non biodegradable) and stronger pressure applied to supermarkets to achieve this. The need to promote and educate people on how to use the existing and any future services and the importance of making it as easy as possible for the public to recycle. Encouraging businesses to recycle more and for facilities to cope with business waste. A wide range of comments about different waste facilities including recycling banks, civic amenity sites, landfill and facilities to deal with specialised waste. Comments about the amount of waste produced and the estimates for the future Do you agree that there is a need for additional waste management facilities in the West of England area? 16, 5% 8, 2% 308, 93% No Yes No Reply Page 13 of 31

14 What other facilities would you propose in order to deal with waste generated in the West of England? 236 comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents included; More specific services and facilities to encourage greater recycling by residents. Desire to be able to recycle plastics. Promotion of reduction in waste and better reuse. Promotion of domestic composting. Facilities provided at Civic Amenity Sites and a desire for more accessible sites, longer opening hours and a freecycle style service. Desire to reduce packaging. Comments about local domestic waste collections. Discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of different waste treatment facilities including size, scale and capacity, heat treatment. Page 14 of 31

15 The West of England should deal with its own municipal waste within its own boundaries. 84% of respondents agreed that the West of England should deal with its own municipal waste within its own boundaries. 172 Comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents included; Desire to take responsibility for treating our own waste and for it to be treated locally. Desire to keep transportation to a minimum, reducing waste miles and traffic congestion. Concern about the environmental impacts of transporting and treating waste. Need to reduce the quantity of waste sent to landfill. The West of England should deal with its own municiple waste within its own boundaries. 8, 2% 8, 2% 40, 12% 276, 84% Disagree No Strong Views Agree No reply Page 15 of 31

16 Our municipal waste facilities should be able to manage waste from other areas outside the West of England. 57% of respondents disagreed with facilities in the West of England managing waste from other areas. 202 Comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents included: Desire to take responsibility for treating our own waste and for it to be treated locally. Desire to keep transportation to a minimum, reducing waste miles and traffic congestion. Working in partnership within Avon and with neighbouring authorities to share information and treat waste as close to source as possible. Working with other LA s to share information and develop specialised waste treatment facilities. Desire to find the most cost effective treatment option including cost of developing and running a facility as well as transporting waste long distances. Ensuring we are adequately compensated if we take waste from other areas. Concern about the environmental impacts of transporting and treating waste. Our municipal waste facilities should be able to manage waste from other areas outside the West of England. 53, 16% 11, 3% 81, 24% 187, 57% Disagree No Strong Views Agree No reply Page 16 of 31

17 Our municipal waste facilities should be able to manage commercial and industrial waste. 71% of respondents agreed that our municipal waste facilities should be able to manage commercial and industrial waste. 179 Comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents included: Desire to see municipal and commercial waste dealt with jointly to minimise duplication of facilities. Comments about the need for businesses to take responsibility for treating there own waste. Ensuring taxpayers are not subsidising businesses and are charged accordingly. Desire to find the most cost effective treatment option including cost of developing and running a facility as well as transporting waste long distances. Encouraging both businesses and residents to reduce, reuse and recycle. Desire t provide waste treatment facilities to deal with local waste and reduce transport miles. Our municipal waste facilities should be able to manage commercial and industrial waste. 15, 5% 32, 10% 45, 14% 240, 71% Disagree No Strong Views Agree No reply Page 17 of 31

18 Do you think we have got the factors that will normally rule out or that may rule out waste development right? 66% of respondents agreed with the factors that will normally rule out or may rule out waste development. 111 Comments were received in relation to this question. The key issues for respondents were: Protection for conservation sites and nature reserves. Desire to see all the factors that may rule out waste development in the same category as will normally rule out development. Flood plains, Forest of Avon and World heritage sites should be added to the normally rule out box. Minimise impacts on residential areas, schools and the community. Do you think we've got the factors which will normally rule out waste development or may rule out waste development right? 61, 18% 54, 16% 217, 66% No Yes No Reply Page 18 of 31

19 Do you agree that the types of sites listed under factors we will look for are the most suitable locations for the additional waste management facilities needed? 72% of respondents agreed that the types of sites listed under factors we will look for are the most suitable locations for the additional waste management facilities needed. 124 Comments were received in relation to this question. Key issues raised by respondents included; Don t want to see facilities too close to residential property. Good transport links important particularly rail link. Desire to use existing waste management sites and the use of brownfield sites. Do you agree that the types of sites listed as factors we will look for are the most suitable locations for the additional waste management facilities needed? 63, 19% 31, 9% 238, 72% No Yes No Reply Page 19 of 31

20 Do you have any suggestions for sites or areas which should be included in the assessment process? A number of sites and factors were mentioned by respondents including: Avonmouth and Portbury were the most commonly stated areas alongside other site specific suggestions. Respondents showed a preference for brownfield sites, industrial areas & estates and old quarries as potentially suitable sites where the impacts to residents could be minimised. Respondents wanted to use sites with good transport connections, by road, rail and waterways. Do you think we have identified the right objectives for assessing sites? Should we include any other objectives? Unfortunately due to an oversight in the design and layout of the questionnaire, which meant that we asked two questions in one, the numerical data from this question is unusable. 93 Comments were received in relation to this question. The key issues raised were: Important to minimise impacts of development as far as possible, particularly to residents, watercourses and wildlife areas. Sites with good transport connections were important. Opportunities to use heat and power should be considered. Concerns about the ability to find suitable sites that meet all of the criteria. Any other comments received. We received an additional 39 comments in relation to the summary questionnaire. The key issues raised by respondents were: Some respondents were concerned about the need to identify the number and size of sites before knowing the details of the proposed technology to be used A number of comments supporting Friends of the Earth Option X "Friends of the Earth Option x. I support: (1) treating residual waste through composting, or anaerobic digestion. (2) small-scale, flexible waste-processing facilities, that will come on-line quicker, and create more jobs than an incinerator. (3) short term contracts with waste contractors (no longer than 10 years) (4) the sorting of waste, to recover as much recyclable material as possible (5) improvements to recycling collections, to drive up recycling rates (6) steps that will move us towards the ultimate goal of 'zero waste'. I am opposed to the Energy from Waste Option 1 that has been out forward in the Council's waste consultation. This is just incineration by a different name. this polluting technology would: (1) produce air pollution and toxic ash. (2) suppress recycling demand (3) save less energy than recycling (4) create few jobs (5) take longer to come on-line, committing us to a long-term PFI contract. I am opposed to: (1) the thermal treatment of waste in Options 2,3,5 and 6, (though I do not reject the other technology components of these options) and to the burning of the resulting fuel, which is likely to produce toxic air emissions. (2) any contract that ties us in to supplying minimum quantities of waste." Page 20 of 31

21 Analysis of additional questions in technical questionnaire Do you agree that the Development Plan should use the most up to date information and forecasts available in the Waste Strategy? 95% of respondents agreed that the Development Plan should use the most up to date information and forecasts available in the Waste Strategy. We received 21 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: Strong support to use the most up to date information available Queries checking accuracy and age of data used in the draft strategy Do you agree that the Development Plan should use the most up to date information and forecasts available in the Waste Strategy? 0, 0% 2, 5% 39, 95% Yes No No reply Page 21 of 31

22 Do you have any information on the accuracy of the regional allocations for commercial & industrial and construction & demolition waste in the West of England? None of the respondents could supply us with information on the accuracy of the regional allocations for commercial & industrial and construction & demolition waste in the West of England. We received 11 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: Need for up to date and accurate information. Acknowledgement of the amount businesses currently recycle and the need to encourage more. Do you have any information on the accuracy of the regional allocations for commercial & industrial and construction & demolition waste in the West of England? 2, 5% 0, 0% 39, 95% Yes No No reply Page 22 of 31

23 Do you agree with the types of waste management facilities listed for inclusion and exclusion in the Development Plan? 44% of respondents to the technical questionnaire agreed with the types of facilities listed for inclusion and exclusion in the Development Plan. We received 26 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: General agreement with range of options available. Concern that only considering facilities with a capacity over 30,000 tonnes will create a two tier system and that opportunities and option for cooperation could be missed. Need for the sub regional plan and the local waste plans to be developed in parallel. Do you agree with the types of waste management facilities listed for inclusion and exclusion in the Development Plan? 9, 22% 18, 44% 14, 34% Yes No No reply Page 23 of 31

24 Do you agree that only recycling and composting facilities with a capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum or over should be considered in the Development Plan? 49% of respondents disagreed with only recycling and composting facilities with a capacity over 30,000 tonnes should be considered in the Development Plan. We received 23 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: Concern about having a 30,000 tonnes cut off point and that we could miss out on opportunities, and increase bureaucracy. Doubts about accuracy of figures and what 30,000 tonnes equates to compost and/or recyclables. Value of small local facilities and the ability to scale them as demand changes, ability for them to come on line quicker. Do you agree that only recycling and composting facilities with a capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum or over should be considered in the Development Plan? 10, 24% 11, 27% 20, 49% Yes No No reply Page 24 of 31

25 Do you think that the West of England should deal with its own waste and not continue to export waste to other areas? 81% of respondents to this question supported the West of England dealing with its own waste and not continuing to export waste to other areas. We received 24 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: General support for reducing the transport of waste and for taking responsibility for the treatment of our waste. Being flexible and working with neighbouring authorities to develop specialist facilities where they may be benefits from economies of scale. Do you think that the West of England should deal with its own waste and not continue to exporting to other areas? 3, 7% 5, 12% 33, 81% Yes No No reply Page 25 of 31

26 Do you think that the West of England should only plan to deal with waste from the West of England? 56% of respondents to this question agreed that the West of England should only plan to deal with waste from the West of England. We received 27 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: West of England should plan for its own waste, but there could be opportunities to share capacity or use spare capacity by neighbouring authorities as long as were adequately compensated. Cost effectiveness, economies of scale, specialist facilities, minimising transport of waste. Do you think that the West of England should only plan to deal with waste from the West of England 6, 15% 12, 29% 23, 56% Yes No No reply Page 26 of 31

27 Do you agree with the need identified for additional waste management facilities? 53% of respondents agreed with the need for additional waste management facilities? We received 24 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: West of England will need to provide additional waste management capacity if the move to a more sustainable waste management system is to be achieved. Questioning of data and figures. Desire to see quantity of waste reduced through greater recycling and reduction in packaging. Need for a flexible approach to take account of changes in the waste stream and quantities. Do you agree with the need identified for additional waste management facilities? 8, 20% 11, 27% 22, 53% Yes No No reply Page 27 of 31

28 Do you agree that this need should be met by building the facilities identified? 53% of respondents agreed that the need should be met by building the facilities identified. We received 22 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: Support for greater composting and recycling and small scale facilities to support this. Concern about ability to deliver facilities through the planning process. Flexibility with range of technology options. Desire to see reduction in waste going to landfill and acknowledgement that some waste will still require disposal through landfill. Questioning of data and accuracy of figures. Do you agree that this need should be met by building the facilities identified? 11, 27% 22, 53% 8, 20% Yes No No reply Page 28 of 31

29 If we dispose of waste to landfill, which landfill disposal option do you favour? 49% of respondents favoured extending and utilising existing landfill sites as their preferred landfill option. We received 25 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: Desire to see reduction in landfill and acknowledgement that some will still be required. Acknowledgement of the difficulty in finding new landfill/landraise sites locally. Preference for utilising exiting sites although choice between landfill/landraise should be considered on a case by case basis. Desire to see reduction in exporting of waste to other areas. If we dispose of waste to landfill, what landfill disposal option do you favour? 19, 46% 20, 49% 2, 5% Extending/utilising existing sites New land raise sites No reply Page 29 of 31

30 Do you agree that the objectives and indicators set out are the most suitable for identifying and assessing areas and sites for waste management purposes? 51% of respondents agreed that the objectors and indicators set out are the most suitable for identifying and assessing areas and sites for waste management purposes. We received 21 comments in relation to this question, the key issues raised by respondents were: Generally agreement. Question whether some issues should be ruled out or given flexibility. Do you agree that the objectives and indicators set out are the most suitable for identifying and assessing areas and sites for waste management purposes 12, 29% 21, 51% 8, 20% Yes No No reply Page 30 of 31

31 Which concerns do you think would have to be overcome to locate a waste management facility in your area? Respondents suggested that all of the concerns listed would need to be tackled and managed, although some are easier to overcome than others. Respondents understood the need to reduce impacts as far as possible. Which concerns do you think would have to be overcome to locate a waste management facility in your area? Odour Litter Traffic Vermin Visual Health/pollution Noise Dust Other Page 31 of 31